One of my favorite Latin tags is sub specie aeternitatis, under the aspect of eternity. That, I learned three score years ago, is the
way we philosophers are supposed to view things, reaching always for the
eternal truths and shunning the intellectual fashions of the moment. When I began this blog ten years ago and
more, I spent days, even weeks, writing long detailed analyses of books and
problems, content to leave comments on the passing scene to those not blessed
with a philosophic temperament. Well, to
steal another Latin tag, this time from my favorite author, Karl Marx, quantum mutatus ab illo. [How changed is Hector from before.]
Now, I experience each twist and turn of the news cycle as a
lifetime. A day becomes a century, a week an era, a month an epoch. I cannot type fast enough to write a comment
on a tidbit of BREAKING NEWS before it is overtaken and consigned to the trash
heap of history by a tidbit even newer.
My favorite tidbit
this morning is John Yoo’s abrupt reversal of his characterization of Lt. Col.
Vindman’s actions as espionage. Today
Yoo says he was referring to the Ukrainians, that he honors Vindman’s service,
and that what Trump did was indeed to offer a quid pro quo [we cannot seem to get away from the Latin.] I infer that Yoo’s colleagues let him know
that unless he took it back he might as well not return to the UC Berkeley
School of Law.
Meanwhile, I hang on very word of the MSNBC commentators,
waiting to hear whether John Bolton will testify. Bolton, it is my impression, has a more than
ordinarily inflated ego, so I think we all ought to say loudly and often how
absolutely crucial his testimony would be and how admirable we think it would
be for him to come forward.
Sigh, it is no fun being a mayfly. Would anyone be interested in a seventeen
part post on Hume’s theory of our belief in the continued and independent
existence of objects?
Yes re Hume, or 10 on his views of justice.
ReplyDeleteYoo has tenure so his colleagues’ views do not much matter. That is a storm he has already weathered.
Hume, by all means. Now that the World Series is over, and the mighty Washington Nationals won, I need something to keep my mind off of Trump. There's no such thing as too much Hume.
ReplyDeleteSign me up for the philosophical excursus!
ReplyDeleteBut please don't stop the commentary on the passing scene.
I'm a big fan of your insights. Not so much of the various fools like myself who post comments from the peanut gallery.
My favorite Latin phrase is not nearly so high-brow! Ten points for the translation, fifty for to whom it refers!
ReplyDeleteDuae tabulae rasae en quibus nihil scriptum est!
I had to Google it, Chris, but it was worth it. Laurel and Hardy are always welcome on this blog!
ReplyDeleteHello Professor Wolff,
ReplyDeleteI discovered your blog via Brian Leiter’s blog and the YouTube lectures from your blog. A big big fan from 8000 miles away. I’ve just finished 5 lectures of Kant and Marx and one ideological critique. One of the best learning experiences of my life. I am not a philosopher, but a keen reader of philosophy and I always try to find good secondary resources on big time philosophers, especially those who are not easy to understand, such as Kant and Wittgenstein. Hume is an excellent writer and what he writes is perfectly understandable, but still...It is much better to study his work in a context (also, sprinkled with your memories, which are delightful). So, I would love to have your take on Hume.
Please accept my gratitude for what you are doing. Thank you very much.
Another vote for Hume lectures!
ReplyDeleteHume please. We are not all Americans here.
ReplyDeleteNP
Yes for the Hume Posts
ReplyDeleteThe following questions are entirely out of topic, but I post them because the blogger and his regular readers are knowledgeable in political philosophy.
ReplyDeleteWhat delegitimises a government? What are the arguments for and against peaceful civil disobedience and armed insurrection? When are citizens justified in taking arms against their government?
Dr. Wolff,
ReplyDeleteI think of that line every time I see Trump and Pence on stage together.
David and Christopher,
ReplyDeleteNo Hocus Pocus - which is Latin for an amazing, doable, Medicare for All plan just put forward
by Warren:
https://theintercept.com/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all/
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteI know it's doable. The question is can it be enacted. If it can't be, a dual system will work and pretty soon the private insurance market will collapse, or be left providing niche products for rich people. It will wither away (like the state will someday!). If I were advising Warren or Sanders I would tell them to sell their plans for national health insurance with the caveat that if people want, we can take the slow road over the next 8 years. This has been in play since FDR so a few more years of transition is, to me, "nema problema." (Croatian)
Chris,
ReplyDeleteI think Barkan disagrees:
"We can’t get those savings if “Medicare for all who want it” is competing with a bunch of private insurers. Doctors and hospitals wouldn’t save any money or time, like they would under single payer. And we wouldn’t be able to rein in absurd expenses from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, or monopoly hospital corporations."
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteTo the question of what delegitimizes a government I think there are at least two dynamics that may be at work. The first is that should the justifications that underly the status quo are "unmasked" and seen to be bogus, then the state or social structure is delegitimized. (See Max Weber, Economy and Society Vol. II, p.953, there is also a longer discussion in Vol. 1.) There he states when "...the class situation has become unambiguously and openly visible to everyone as the factor determining every man's individual fate..." then power relationships become clear, the rationalizations for them are seen as untrue and the state has become delegitimized.
The second is that the state becomes ineffective at delivering the outcomes that people expect of it. When the state can't perform, delegitimization starts to occur. The roads are getting worse, schools are underperforming, environmental laws aren't being enforced (the lead crises in Flint, MI), wages have been stagnant for decades while the rich get richer, the Supreme Court has been packed and a clearly unqualified person was approved, Congress can't pass immigration reform, an infrastructure bill, etc. This is an approach that Habermas developed in his book Legitimation Crisis. It is dense, not very well written, but useful. I think it's fair to say that the crisis we are in now stems in no small part from government failures resulting in a performance/legitimation crisis.
I hope this is useful....
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Christopher--the question is: can it be enacted? I don’t see how it can. Such a massive change will involve losers as well as winners, and those who see themselves as the losers will oppose it. The fact is that many private policies provide better coverage than Medicare (which is why many of us on Medicare pay hefty premiums for Midigap policies.) Those who are now getting dental, hearing, and ophthalmic benefits, which Medicare doesn’t proide, would lose them. Their representatives in Congress would defeat any such plan--leaving us without the benefit of improvements in the system that could be enacted.
An even more important question to me is: would those who would lose support a presidential candidate who advocated the plan? I fear not. I fear it could re-elect Trump, and that’s a risk I don’t want to take.
Jerry
ReplyDeleteI am making a simple point: if you can't get the whole enchilada, get what you can, and take it from there. I believe there would be a virtuous cycle that would result from a mixed system. 1) Private insurers can't offer an affordable and comprehensive plan on the open market. They never have and never will be able to. The public option will set the standard for affordable, quality health plans . 2) Government would be representing a large, if not the largest, segment of the population almost immediately. For example, in my first post I noted that Vermont had 1/3 of the population on medicaid. Add in the Medicare folks, and then some percentage of folks who will opt for the public plan because it is cheaper and more comprehensive and soon you're over 50% on the public option. My point is public sector enrollment would soon make it the biggest purchaser and lots of saving fall into place, like drug and devices. 3) Hospitals would save money because they would be getting reimbursed for all care provided and no longer shifting costs onto other sources. 4) In Vermont, and many rural states, private insurers will abandon the market because it is not worth competing over the remaining people. We had that problem in the 1990's when I was in human services in VT.
David Palmeter,
ReplyDeleteThe public option has to be a rich, i.e., comprehensive, plan with vision dental, mental health included. It can't be the same old Medicare or Medicaid programs. Then you can stop your medigap coverage. Soon the public option outcompetes private plans and they are reduced to selling high-priced coverage to rich folks who want plastic surgery coverage or whatever for their trophy wives.
There are two things that worry me about the upcoming election: 1) insisting on a single payor system right away is not only not feasible, it gives Republicans an issue to use against the Democrats, and 2) the DNC/Clinton wing will take its money and run away from a progressive ticket.
Christopher Mulvaney,
ReplyDeleteI confess I'm lazy--I haven't read the details of Warren's proposal apart from the headlines. If her plan would be to raise everyone to the level of those who now have the so-called "Cadillac plans" that would be great. Everyone would gain; no one would lose. Short of that, however, there is still the problem of those those steelworkers and auto workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin who have obtained the high end plans over the years through collective bargaining and don't want the government taking away what they feel they've earned. Come election day, they won't be nice to anyone who wants to do that.
David Palmeter,
ReplyDeleteEven if the steelworkers and autoworkers would not vote for a candidate who proposes Medicare for all, we'd have to calculate how many more people in states with many union members who normally don't vote or who might even vote for Trump would vote for a candidate who proposes Medicare for all.
Thanks for the latin lessons. nurse home services Hope to see more latin lessons like this.
ReplyDeleteGreat latin lessons. Health care services Hope to see more latin lessons like this
ReplyDelete